The ‘war’ I describe is within each individual organization. The PR people with a more community-minded approach can be easily subverted by in-house marketing people in the same company.

If someone from WidgetCo adds value to your community over a period of time, that’s great. But when another agent of WidgetCo steps in and starts crapping in the pool (which he will, because he has a different goal in mind) then the community gets confused. Or it may happen because PR people are in one community you belong to, and the marketers invade another one.

Members of a community still expect companies to speak with one voice. That’s what I mean by “someone has to own it.” It will vary from corporation to corporation, but ultimately Social Media as we know it will belong to one discipline or the other.

Personally, I see the lines blurring differently… I am just a communicator. But I don’t expect the corporate structure to give up on the momentum and investment in what it has now.

I think that the war you described is interesting…I don’t think it’s anyone’s responsibility to own this space, in fact, ownership would be counterintuitive and that’s why I’m so turned off by the ‘war’ you described in general. Social, to me, implies distributed ownership or no ownership at all. There are leaders, there are catalysts, there are executors, and there are receivers. It’s a pretty flat structure that lies across ALL industries, not just media, marketing, and PR. If any one industry ends up ‘winning’, I think the entire space of social media would end up losing.

There is a war going on in companies over who will “own” social media as an area of responsibility. Believe me, we’ll be so much better off if the PR people win that war. Right now, it looks like the marketers are taking the lead. And yes, there is a big difference in the two.

What is value for you is not value for everyone. And social media makes it possible for that to coexist and make cool stuff.

Ditto that, sir.

Never mind the fact that “join the conversation” is so much less valuable than “start a new conversation” (*ahem* echo chamber *ahem*). Something about the word “conversation” has become SO diluted by P.R. and “conversational media” experts.

The problem, as you said, is they may be media/P.R. experts, but they lack the social graces necessary to make the tools we’re building worth the second look.

Jake “Community Guy” McKee started an “ask the community guy” thread on his site, and today’s reply was poignant as it reminded people that they should a) not rush, b) don’t push an agenda, and c) follow up. The people abusing twitter (and all of the other social media tools) violate every single one of those rules, time and time again.

The problem is, since this such a new space, no one is there to whistle-blow when people are out of line. I guess that’s our jobs. Kudos to you for blowing the whistle here, well said sir.

The biggest criticism I have is the premise of the list: that everyone will use Twitter in the same way.

Twitter is a tool, and a lot like a blank white sheet. You can use it as a sheet, or as a toga, or as a partition, or as a ghost costume, or as a drop cloth. It’s rather limiting to say you can only use it on the bed.

I know people who use it to stay up with a small clique. I know others who welcome the blog links and post announcements, because Twitter for them is a new priority RSS feed. Others add people like crazy to build a “hive mind,” then ask questions and mine the “@” answers.

Most of the people I know who get value out of Twitter had no idea what that value would be going in. For someone to assume that gaming the network is automatically in everyone else’s best interests is flat out silly.

Nice to meet you, Nate. Maybe I’ll see you where the Blue Bird flies.